Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?

[Badran]

You know, i'm not sure i understand whats the point neither. I suppose there must be something that can't be done unless there is some kind of recognition by the government. Or may be they want some courts for family disputes and things like that, so that their lives would be more governed by their desired system.

 

[ChristineES]

No and for this reason: Laws for a religion only belong to that faith, but not everyone in a society will belong to the faith. If the whole society were of the same faith, then that would be the only way that would work.

 

[Badran]

No and for this reason: Laws for a religion only belong to that faith, but not everyone in a society will belong to the faith. If the whole society were of the same faith, then that would be the only way that would work.

It is supposed to be implemented on muslims only, did you miss that part?

I don't think the proposition is that it is applied on everyone.

 

[xkatz]

I voted no. TBH, I would only say unsure if it was "informal", meaning that it would have nothing to do w/ the gov't.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm not very certain myself, but I found myself wondering if Sharia (in a secular state) couldn't be simply adopted by common accord among the Muslims that live there, without necessarily being recognized by the local government.

That's the way most religious rules are handled in secular societies now.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews in America, for example, go to their priests, Imams, and Rabbis for guidance and dispute resolution all the time. The decisions made are only binding on parties that agree to it and carry no legal or official ramifications.

I guess the question comes down to what exactly was meant in the OP: are we talking about religious law existing within society, or religious law existing within the government?

They are two very different situations.

 

[ChristineES]

It is supposed to be implemented on muslims only, did you miss that part?

I don't think the proposition is that it is applied on everyone.

Well, in that case, my answer remains the same. Take the USA, everyone who is a citizen or is becoming a citizen has rights guaranteed for each and every person. It probably wouldn't be a problem most of the time, but there are always extremists in every group. Think about some of those laws in Leviticus? What if an extremist Christian group decided to stone adulterers? We couldn't allow that to happen.

 

[Badran]

Well, in that case, my answer remains the same. Take the USA, everyone who is a citizen or is becoming a citizen has rights guaranteed for each and every person. It probably wouldn't be a problem most of the time, but there are always extremists in every group. Think about some of those laws in Leviticus? What if an extremist Christian group decided to stone adulterers? We couldn't allow that to happen.

Yes sure, thats why i said not all rules should be accepted nor implemented. The basics would do just fine for starters. For example, inheritance in Islam has certain rules, i guess if there is an islamic court or any kind of thing that would help resolve such disputes, would be appreciated.

You don't have to implement the whole deal, especially because not all muslims even agree on all the rules.

 

[Badran]

I guess the question comes down to what exactly was meant in the OP: are we talking about religious law existing within society, or religious law existing within the government?

They are two very different situations.

I think YmirGF meant wether or not it should exist within society, not the government.

 

[ChristineES]

Yes sure, thats why i said not all rules should be accepted nor implemented. The basics would do just fine for starters. For example, inheritance in Islam has certain rules, i guess if there is an islamic court or any kind of thing that would help resolve such disputes, would be appreciated.

You don't have to implement the whole deal, especially because not all muslims even agree on all the rules.

I suppose if the rules won't harm anyone physically or emotionally, they could be enforced.

 

[LuisDantas]

If so, then it is largely a matter for Muslims to decide among themselves, Badran.

 

[Tarheeler]

I think YmirGF meant wether or not it should exist within society, not the government.

That's what I thought as well, and made my first post accordingly.

But many here seem to be arguing against it existing within the government rather than society; and that, I agree, should never happen.

 

[Badran]

I suppose if the rules won't harm anyone physically or emotionally, they could be enforced.

Thats good to hear, because thats what i mean. Within the laws of the country, it would offer what's possible to the muslims living there, without breaking any of it's civil rights or anything that is a given in that particular country.

 

[Badran]

That's what I thought as well, and made my first post accordingly.

But many here seem to be arguing against it existing within the government rather than society; and that, I agree, should never happen.

I agree that it shouldn't be existing within the government, that doesn't even make sense when we consider a secular government.

If so, then it is largely a matter for Muslims to decide among themselves, Badran.

Yeah thats what i think too.

 

[darkendless]

No.

We should not prioritise one religion over another. Especially one with such a horrible reputation of breeding extremists.

 

[Badran]

No.

We should not prioritise one religion over another.

Who said anything about prioritizing?

Especially one with such a horrible reputation of breeding extremists.

It's not that horrible. Besides, like i said the government will always have the say in which rules they approve of being implemented and which is not, so there would be no room for religious extremism to make its way.

That is actually what secularism is all about. Allowing people to live the aspects of their religion without it having anything with power or government so it wouldn't affect people who don't adhere that religion.

 

[darkendless]

Who said anything about prioritizing?

Sharia is a law of Islam. Why should Islam get anything another religion does not?

It's not that horrible. Besides, like i said the government will always have the say in which rules they approve of being implemented and which is not, so there would be no room for religious extremism to make its way.

Funnily enough we had a group of muslims asking for Sharia law to be implemented because secularism is a joke (on a news programme). The funny thing was that secularism means they are allowed to express their opinion yet they use it to attack the system allowing them to have an opinion. Absolute idiots, made normal muslims look bad.

the point though is all 15 people asked whether it was acceptable on the street said the same thing. That was "this is Australia, accept it for what it is or go home."

If Sharia is what muslims want, then the west is not the place for them.

That is actually what secularism is all about. Allowing people to live the aspects of their religion without it having anything with power or government so it wouldn't affect people who don't adhere that religion.

It means they can practice their religion without being hassled, even though they (christians mainly) hassle everyone else to convert.

Perhaps i missed which aspects of Sharia law would be implemented? The way i see it now is that Sharia would exist outside normal laws giving muslims an unfair advantage over other minorities?

 

[Badran]

Funnily enough we had a group of muslims asking for Sharia law to be implemented because secularism is a joke (on a news programme). The funny thing was that secularism means they are allowed to express their opinion yet they use it to attack the system allowing them to have an opinion. Absolute idiots, made normal muslims look bad.

the point though is all 15 people asked whether it was acceptable on the street said the same thing. That was "this is Australia, accept it for what it is or go home."

If Sharia is what muslims want, then the west is not the place for them.

I get the impression that in Australia, you got some muslims demanding some pretty dumb stuff. Because i also heard of another incident when a couple of muslims "demanded" they'd be tried by sharia law for a rape crime, those are not really worth mentioning. They are ignorant fools and should be treated as such, completely ignored. The country must implement its laws in regards to crimes.

Sharia is a law of Islam. Why should Islam get anything another religion does not?

It means they can practice their religion without being hassled, even though they (christians mainly) hassle everyone else to convert.

Perhaps i missed which aspects of Sharia law would be implemented? The way i see it now is that Sharia would exist outside normal laws giving muslims an unfair advantage over other minorities?

what is merely proposed here, is that for example like i said muslims get some courts or any kind of institution to resolve inheritance disputes and the like according to Islamic system.

Now, this doesn't bother anyone, it doesn't hurt anyone, muslims want it, and it doesn't enforce anything on non-muslims. As for other minorities, if their religion have some sets of rules that can also be applied without messing with the government then i don't see any problem. The point in my eyes, that makes secularism good for these places with a wide variety of religions, is that it doesn't allow any religion to affect others who do not adhere it and stops the oppression. Did you get a wrong impression about what is proposed here, or do you have a problem with this particular idea?

 

[darkendless]

I get the impression that in Australia, you got some muslims demanding some pretty dumb stuff. Because i also heard of another incident when a couple of muslims "demanded" they'd be tried by sharia law for a rape crime, those are not really worth mentioning. They are ignorant fools and should be treated as such, completely ignored. The country must implement its laws in regards to crimes.

This was a suprisingly big group i think. That's all we need after the riots we had a few years ago.

what is merely proposed here, is that for example like i said muslims get some courts or any kind of institution to resolve inheritance disputes and the like according to Islamic system.

Now, this doesn't bother anyone, it doesn't hurt anyone, muslims want it, and it doesn't enforce anything on non-muslims. As for other minorities, if their religion have some sets of rules that can also be applied without messing with the government then i don't see any problem. The point in my eyes, that makes secularism good for these places with a wide variety of religions, is that it doesn't allow any religion to affect others who do not adhere it and stops the oppression. Did you get a wrong impression about what is proposed here, or do you have a problem with this particular idea?

It will never happen here. The problem muslims face is it will go to a vote and 90% of Australia will say "whats wrong with our courts?" I know England has it and i disagree with their decision.

If Jews and Muslims had a problem with english courts, why stay in England? Although no one gets hurt by allowing it, it goes against our way of life. You don't come to our western paradises and complain. You take things as they are. If you don't like it, get out? Our courts are designed for everyone, and if your religion clashes how is it our problem?

 

[Badran]

This was a suprisingly big group i think. That's all we need after the riots we had a few years ago.



It will never happen here. The problem muslims face is it will go to a vote and 90% of Australia will say "whats wrong with our courts?" I know England has it and i disagree with their decision.

If Jews and Muslims had a problem with english courts, why stay in England? Although no one gets hurt by allowing it, it goes against our way of life. You don't come to our western paradises and complain. You take things as they are. If you don't like it, get out? Our courts are designed for everyone, and if your religion clashes how is it our problem?

Well you're certainly entitled to have your country the way you want to, and you're obviously entitled to your opinion. However, there is two points:

1) I don't really see why it has to come down to this. (as in why take it as an insult to your system, not all people like the same stuff. And no system is perfect).

2) Not all muslims are emigrants. I presume some must be Australians, i mean born there.

So i think, if there is no harm done, and putting in mind that some of those are Australian citizens(unless i'm wrong in my assumption, please correct me if i'm wrong), i can't see why it shouldn't happen only because other Australians don't like the idea. However like i said, it is of course your opinion and you're entitled to it.

 

[darkendless]

Well you're certainly entitled to have your country the way you want to, and you're obviously entitled to your opinion. However, there is two points:

1) I don't really see why it has to come down to this. (as in why take it as an insult to your system, not all people like the same stuff. And no system is perfect).

I'm suspect to changes that would benefit 1.7% of the country. We have bigger issues at the moment as do most western countries.

2) Not all muslims are emigrants. I presume some must be Australians, i mean born there.

This is true. However, the ones that were born here in most cases are not the issue.

So i think, if there is no harm done, and putting in mind that some of those are Australian citizens(unless i'm wrong in my assumption, please correct me if i'm wrong), i can't see why it shouldn't happen only because other Australians don't like the idea. However like i said, it is of course your opinion and you're entitled to it.

The homosexual population is larger than the muslim one and they still do not have civil unions because of the christian majority. Sadly thats how it works.

When it comes down to it, no one in government would ever push for the sharia you propose because they stand to lose more than they stand to gain. It probably only went through in England because there is a sizeable population of muslims to be won over.